DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-15, 17-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suh et al. (US PGPub 2012/0025244; hereinafter “Suh”) in view of Kondo (US PGPub 2017/0186918) and Kim et al. (US PGPub 2012/0043575; hereinafter “Kim”).
Re claim 1: Suh teaches (e.g. fig. 3) a face-up light-emitting device, comprising: a substrate (21, 23) which has a first surface (upper surface of 23; hereinafter “1S”) and a second surface (lower surface of 21; hereinafter “2S”) opposite to said first surface (1S); a semiconductor stacked structure (30) which is disposed on said first surface (1S) and is capable of emitting light (light emitting structure 30; e.g. paragraph 39); a first insulating stacked structure (distributed Bragg reflector 37 formed by alternately stacking material layers having different indices of refraction, for example, a SiO2 layer and a TiO2 layer; e.g. paragraph 39, 57) which is disposed on said semiconductor stacked structure (30) and which includes first material layers (SiO2 of 37) each of which has a refractive index, and second material layers (TiO2 of 37) each of which has a refractive index higher (SiO2 has a refractive index lower than TiO2) than that of each of said first material layers (SiO2 of 37), said first material layers (SiO2 of 37) and said second material layers (TiO2 of 37) being stacked alternately; and a first metal electrode (35) and a second metal electrode (33) which are disposed on said semiconductor stacked structure (30), said first metal electrode (35) including a first wire bonding portion (upper surface portion of 35) which has a first upper surface (upper surface of 35), said second metal electrode (33) including a second wire bonding portion (upper surface portion of 33) which has a second upper surface (upper surface portion 33), wherein said first insulating stacked structure (37) covers (37 covers side surfaces of 35, 33) said first metal electrode (35) and said second metal electrode (33), has a first through hole (holes in 37 that provide the locations for 35, 33) and a second through hole () that respectively expose said first upper surface (upper surface of 35) and said second upper surface (upper surface of 33).
Suh is silent as to be explicitly teaching first insulating stacked structure (37) having a geometric thickness which ranges from 500 nm to 1000 nm; and the first insulating stacked structure has a second hole-defining wall that defines said second through hole and that has a second top edge, and wherein a shorted horizontal distance between said second top edge and a periphery of said second upper surface ranges from 2µm to 10µm..
Kondo teaches (e.g. fig. 2A) the first insulating stacked structure (DBR film 14a; e.g. paragraph 30) having a geometric thickness which ranges from 500 nm to 1000 nm (DBR can be formed to have a total thickness of 0.2 to 1 µm; e.g. paragraph 30).
Kim teaches (e.g. fig. 5) the first insulating stacked structure (reflection layer 160 which is a DBR; e.g. paragraphs 68 and 69) has a second hole-defining wall (wall of openings in 160 exposing upper surface of electrode pad 182; hereinafter “2HDW”) that defines said second through hole (openings in 160 exposing upper surface of electrode pad 182) and that has a second top edge (upper edge of openings in 160 exposing upper surface of electrode pad 182; hereinafter “2TE”), and wherein a shortest horizontal distance between said second top edge (2TE) and a periphery of said second upper surface (peripheral edge of 182) ranges from 2µm to 10µm (the thickness of 160 is 20 to 40 layers of 162,164 make up 160, where each layer is 2Å to 10µm, therefore the shortest distance is approximately 4 layers of 162,164, which is approximately 2µm when each layer is 0.5µm; e.g. paragraph 69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, absent unexpected results, to use the DBR thickness as taught by Kondo and the DBR layer overlapping the electrode pad as taught by Kim in the device of Suh in order to have the predictable result simplifying manufacture by using a known thickness capable of reflecting a desired wavelength of light, and in order to have the predictable result of ensuring the reflector has no gaps between the DBR and the electrode pad, respectively.
Re claim 3: Suh in view of Kondo and Kim teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein said first insulating stacked structure (37 of Suh and 160 of Kim) further has a first hole-defining wall (hole defining wall for 35 of Suh and 172 of Kim; hereinafter “1HDW”) defines said first through hole (hole for 35 of Suh/172 of Kim; hereinafter “1TH”) and that has a first top edge (top edge of 1TH; hereinafter “1TE”), a shortest horizontal distance (the thickness of 160 is 20 to 40 layers of 162,164 make up 160, where each layer is 2Å to 10µm, therefore the shortest distance is approximately 4 layers of 162,164, which is approximately 2µm when each layer is 0.5µm; e.g. paragraph 69) between said first top edge (1TE) and a periphery of said first upper surface (upper surface of 35) ranging from 2µm to 10µm.
Re claim 4: Suh teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein said first insulating stacked structure (37) has a reflectance greater than 90% to a light having a wavelength ranging from 430 nm to 460 nm and having an incident angle ranging from 0* to 10* (MPEP 2112.01(i) recites that when a structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are presumed to be present).
Re claim 5: Suh teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 4, wherein said first insulating stacked structure (37) has a reflectance less than 50% to a light having a wavelength ranging from 500 nm to 700 nm and having an incident angle ranging from 0* to 10* (MPEP 2112.01(i) recites that when a structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are presumed to be present).
Re claim 6: Suh in view of Kondo teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein said first insulating stacked structure (37) includes X number of layer units each having one of said first material layers and an adjacent one of said second material layers (DBR is constructed having two to five sets of dielectric multilayer pairs; e.g. paragraph 30 of Kondo), and 3≤X≤10.
Re claim 7: Suh in view of Kondo teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein said first insulating stacked structure further includes a base layer which has a geometric thickness ranging from 50 nm to 400 nm (four sets with a total thickness of 900 nm would have each layer, including the lowest layer, of being 112.5nm each; e.g. paragraph 30).
Re claim 8: Suh in view of Kondo teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein each of said first material layers has a geometric thickness ranging from 50 nm to 100 nm, and each of said second material layers has a geometric thickness ranging from 30 nm to 60 nm (four sets with a total thickness of 450 nm would have each layer being 56.25nm each; e.g. paragraph 30).
Re claim 9: Suh teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 6, further comprising a reflecting structure (40) disposed on said second surface (2S) of said substrate (21, 23), said reflecting structure (40) including first reflecting layers and second reflecting layers stacked alternately (alternately stacked layers with different indices of refraction; e.g. paragraph 45), and having a geometric thickness greater than (40 is thicker than 37) that of said first insulating stacked structure (37).
Re claim 10: Suh teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 9, wherein said reflecting structure includes Y number of layer units (40 is thicker than 37) each having one of said first reflecting layers and an adjacent one of said second reflecting layers, and Y>X (40 is thicker than 37 and would have a higher number of layers).
Re claim 11: Suh teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 10, wherein said reflecting structure has a reflectance greater than 90% to a light having a wavelength ranging from 400 nm to 700 nm and having an incident angle ranging from 0* to 10* (MPEP 2112.01(i) recites that when a structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are presumed to be present).
Re claim 12: Suh teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 10, wherein the geometric thickness of said reflecting structure (40) is greater than two times (as shown in fig. 3, 40 is twice the thickness of 37) of the geometric thickness of said first insulating stacked structure (37).
Re claim 13: Suh in view of Konda teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 10, wherein the geometric thickness of said reflecting structure ranges from 3 µm to 6 µm and Y≤15 (as shown in fig. 3 of Suh, 40 is twice the thickness of 37; therefore Konda’s teaching of two to five sets of alternating layers would have the Y to be less than 15 layers).
Re claim 14: Suh teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 10, wherein 30≤Y≤60 (as shown in fig. 3 of Suh, 40 is twice the thickness of 37; therefore Konda’s teaching of two to five sets of alternating layers would have the Y to be less than 15 layers; however, a thicker DRB would be more capable of better reflecting a broader spectrum of light, and would have been obvious to make greater than 15 pairs of layers).
Re claim 15: Suh teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein said substrate (21, 23) has a thickness greater than 80 µm (paragraph 40 implies the edge length of 21 is 300µm, therefore it is apparent that the thickness of 21, 23 is approximately 100µm).
Re claim 17: Suh teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein said semiconductor stacked structure (30) includes a first semiconductor layer (25), an active layer (27), and a second semiconductor layer (29) that are disposed on said substrate (21, 23) in such order.
Re claim 18: Suh teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 17, wherein a periphery of said first insulating stacked structure (37) is flush with a periphery of said first semiconductor layer (25).
Re claim 19: Suh teaches the face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 18, wherein said substrate (21, 23) has a length and a width, said length to said width being in a ratio not less than 2:1 (the ratio of the length of 21, 23 in the vertical direction to the width in the horizontal direction is approximately 3:1).
Re claim 20: Suh teaches a display device comprising a face-up light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1 (fig. 7 shows a display device).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE Y MIYOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-1629. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESSE Y MIYOSHI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights